Patients not numbers – lessons learned from Mid Staffordshire

1. Patients not numbers – lessons learned from Mid Staffordshire Professor Tricia Hart Chief executive, South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust @TriciaHart26

2. Some figures... • > 1 million pages of documentary material • > 250 witnesses • 139 days of oral hearings • Terms of reference announced 9 June 2010 • Report handed to Sec of State 5 February 2013 • Costs £13 million to November 2013 • AN Other Inquiry: £40 million before oral hearings.... • 1781 pages • 290 recommendations

3. …. and don’t forget... • Inquiry announced July 2009 • Report published February 2010 • Two volumes • 133 witnesses gave oral evidence • +/- 900 experiences summarised • 18 recommendations

4. What it’s about ... To examine the operation of the commissioning, supervisory and regulatory organisations and other agencies, including the culture and systems of those organisations in relation to their monitoring role at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust between January 2005 and March 2009 and to examine why problems at the Trust were not identified sooner, and appropriate action taken.

5. ... and not about There is a tendency when a disaster strikes to try to seek out someone who can be blamed for what occurred, and a public expectation that those held responsible will be held to account. All too frequently there are insufficient mechanisms for this to be done effectively. A public inquiry is not a vehicle which is capable of fulfilling this purpose except in the limited sense of being able to require individuals and organisations to give an explanation for their actions or inaction. Public Inquiry Report para 106

6. But who is important?

8. Warning signs • Patient stories • Mortality • Complaints • Staff concerns • Whistleblowers • Governance issues • Finance • Staff reductions

9. Patients without advocates I think that is fine as long as it isn’t dependent upon [this], because there are a lot of people who do not have relatives who are fit and able to go in and so what happens to them? You see, the most vulnerable are going to be the ones who, because they have little support or they don’t have relatives who can go in and help, what happens? I mean, we helped others in the ward, didn’t we, while we were there. We were going round and we were taking lids off drinks and we were helping to put things in reach. Evidence of a family asked to help feed their elderly relative – 1st report page 90

10. No training no hygiene She had got a cloth, like a J-cloth, and she cleaned the ledges and she went into the wards, she walked all round the ward with the same cloth, wiping everybody’s table and saying hello, wiping another table and saying hello. Came out of there, went into the toilets and lo and behold, she cleaned the toilets with the same cloth, and went off into the next bay with the same cloth in her hand. You can’t believe what you saw, you really couldn’t believe what you saw. A visiting relative in 2006

11. A patient deathSystemic failure of safety? Extract from Trust investigation report

12. Abuse from neglect We got there about 10 o’clock and I could not believe my eyes. The door was wide open. There were people walking past. Mum was in bed with the cot sides up and she hadn’t got a stitch of clothing on. I mean, she would have been horrified. She was completely naked and if I said covered in faeces, she was. It was everywhere. It was in her hair, her eyes, her nails, her hands and on all the cot side, so she had obviously been trying to lift her herself up or move about, because the bed was covered and it was literally everywhere and it was dried. It would have been there a long time, it wasn’t new. - The daughter-in-law of a 96 year old patient

13. Pressures on staff I mean in some ways I feel ashamed because I have worked there and I can tell you that I have done my best, and sometimes you go home and you are really upset because you can’t say that you have done anything to help. You feel like you have not – although you have answered buzzers, you have provided the medical care but it never seemed to be enough. There was not enough staff to deal with the type of patient that you needed to deal with, to provide everything that a patient would need. You were doing – you were just skimming the surface and that is not how I was trained. A nurse

14. “You walk away” The nurses were so under-resourced they were working extra hours, they were desperately moving from place to place to try to give adequate care to patients. . If you are in that environment for long enough, what happens is you become immune to the sound of pain. You either become immune to the sound of pain or you walk away. You cannot feel people’s pain, you cannot continue to want to do the best you possibly can when the system says no to you, you can’t do the best you can. A doctor who started in A&E in October 2007

15. Professional withdrawal Perhaps I should have been more forceful in my statements, but I was getting to the stage where I was less involved and I was heading to retirement … I did not have a managerial role and therefore I did not see myself as someone who needed to get involved. Perhaps my conscience may have made me raise concerns if I had been in a management role, but I took the path of least resistance. In addition … most of my patients were day cases and there was less impact on those patients. There were also veiled threats at the time, that I should not rock the boat at my stage in life because, for example, I needed discretionary points or to be put forward for clinical excellence awards Evidence given to the Public Inquiry

16. Why wasn’t all this exposed? • Patients not heard or listened to • Impact on patients of concerns, reorganisations, information not thought about • Cumulative effect of concerns ignored • Resources, support and expertise for monitoring absent • Assumptions that others dealing with it • Safety related information not shared • Barriers to information sharing Evidence given to the Public Inquiry

17. System’s business not patients • Standards which missed the point • Focus on finance, corporate governance, targets • Regulatory gaps • Balancing “bad” news with “good” • Assuming compliance not fearing non compliance • Accepting positive information, rejecting the negative Evidence given to the Public Inquiry

18. Recommendations • Involve patients, public, staff • Common values • Fundamental standards • Openness, transparency and candour • Compassionate, caring, committed nursing • Strong patient centred healthcare leadership • Accurate, useful and relevant information

19. Values – clarity and commitment • Put patients first • Staff put patients before themselves • Staff do everything in their power to protect patients from avoidable harm • Openness and honesty with patients regardless of consequences for themselves • Direct patients to where assistance can be provided • Apply NHS values in all their work • Make NHS Constitution the shared reference point for values • All NHS and contractors to commit to NHS values

20. Nurses do not have to wait to be told what to do • Nurse leadership reinforcing values, standards and delivery • Recruit for values and compassion • Training and supervision in humane, skilled and compassionate hands on care • Support and supervision for HCSWs and other team members • Report and pursue concerns

21. Fundamental standards Guidance • NICE to provide evidence based guidance and procedures which will enable compliance with fundamental standards in each clinical setting. • NICE also to provide evidence based means of measuring compliance • Guidance to include measures for staff numbers and skills in each clinical setting required to enable compliance with fundamental standards. • But some tools exist now...

22. Candour • Statutory obligation and sanction • Healthcare provider organisations under a duty to inform patient • Statutory sanction • Wilful obstruction of these duties should be a criminal offence • Deliberate deception of patients in performing duty should be a criminal offence

23. Candour • BUT organisations can insist on candour NOW • No censoring of critical internal reports and full information for patients • Welcome information about concerns • No tolerance of victimisation of those raising concerns • Offer balanced information to the public • Offer whole truth to regulators and commissioners [and insist on the same from others?] • Offer swift remedies and help to patients who have been harmed

24. Openness • Welcome complaints and concerns • Ban gagging clauses • Genuinely independent investigation of serious cases • Involve complainants , staff in investigation • Real feedback to all • Real consideration by Trust Board • Information on actual cases shared with commissioners, regulators, and public

25. Transparency • Honesty about information for public • Balanced information in quality accounts about failures as well as successes • Independent audit of quality accounts • Truth not half truths to be told to regulators • Ensure no misleading information to regulators • CQC to police information obligations including information on enhanced quality standards

26. Strong patient-centred leadership • Recruit and train for values • Support professional development • Voluntary accreditation • Leadership by example • Code of conduct prioritising patient safety and wellbeing, candour • Hold staff to account for serious breach and deficiencies

27. Accurate useful relevant information • Individual and collective responsibility to devise performance measures [R262-267] • Patient, public, commissioners and regulators access to effective comparative performance information for all clinical activity • Improve core information systems

28. Look ‘em up!

29. Extract from written evidence of Mr Street WS0001000717